It turns out I am Canon's biggest fan!

[squig]

12 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Interest in DSLR and mirrorless video is not small. 4.6 million session on EOSHD last year from 1.7 million unique users.

Mostly a kid in Cairo rocking a VPN.

[Andrew Reid]

14 minutes ago, squig said:

Mostly a kid in Cairo rocking a VPN.

Nah. It's not.

[squig]

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Some people just don't appreciate satire.

 

[webrunner5]

I would think a kid in Cairo rocking a VPN would be on Trumps Twitter site more than here LoL. satire.

[wolf33d]

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Even you who hate them this much has at some point handed them thousands of $ though.

Canon is the one glitch in the matrix I wish they'd fucking fix.

Yep I did, Mk2 was great because of having this video capability and the 3 too for Magic Lantern. They had the potential to become leader not only in DSLR photography but also dslr and mirorless video. 

They fucked it up. A Mk4 with proper video specs (at least A7r2 specs) would have been great. A Canon mirorless with those specs would have been amazing (adding better lenses, ergonomics, menus, colors to the A7r2 basically) and a Canon FF mirorless with exact GH5 specs would be the last and only camera I need for years 

 

not gonna happen.

[Kisaha]

How exactly "they fucked it up", when all the indications and numbers shownthat they are still #1 both in photography and video cameras sales? While they sell more lenses than all the rest together? When the least demanding amateur, and most demanding professionals have a Canon in their top 3 buying list?

I do not own any digital Canon cameras right now (I have AE-1 and a couple of 90's SLRs) but I have influenced people buying C100 and C300s before, and I do understand why people mostly buying Canon, because they DO work as advertised, do not -usually- have asterisks, and they are right for the target groups they are optimized for.

Most of the world right now do not even have 1080p TV (I mean, that most of the world do not have full HD programms); so 4K, 10 bit and other "necessities", ain't every bodies truth, and the markets ain't only Berlin and New York, and London, and Los Angeles, there are 4-5 billions of people (a slight exaggeration of course!) that are perfectly fine with a M6 or 80D, I am not, so I bought NX, but I do totally understand and respect their choice, and looking forward to a C100 mark III, because the MKII is my favorite camera, after 19 years in the business.

Since last year that they realized the M cameras can really sell, and that the markets are moving to the mirrorless side, they have a nice M addition after the other. I am sure they will be very careful not to cannibalize their C market, but eventually we can see their top APS-C camera being an M, and maybe that will be the time that I will abandon my beloved NX cameras!

[OliKMIA]

They fucked up because Canon fails to understand that entry to medium range ($1000-$3000) camera with good video capabilities would generate some substantial sales and there is definitely a market segment here (eg GH4).  Even if this "video DSLR" market segment represents 3-5%; Is the Camera industry doing so well that they can ignore it ?

They fucked up because now this market segment is being taken by Panasonic and Sony and people who make the switch are not going to come back.

They fucked up because some conservative executives in Japan think that delivering decent video feature in DSLR/Miroless body would hurt their pro-cinema line when actually the pro do need a real pro camera with built in ND, XLR and all the pro cam features.

They fucked up to comprehend that the amateurs or video enthusiasts like me can't spend the money they don't have for an expensive Pro camera and even if I had the money I need something small capable of doing video and stills (plus having a nice full frame sensor and not S35). It has nothing to do with cannibalization, Sony does have A7 and FS line and they do just fine because they know it's two different market.

Bottom line is that I laugh at the 5D4, I pre-order the GH5 and I'm not spending a dime anymore on Canon gears. I may not be the typical core market guy for Canon but is the camera industry doing so well than they can ignore the 3-5% video/stills folks and laugh at the face of customers who invested a lot $$$ over the years ?

[Andrew Reid]

15 hours ago, squig said:

 

GOOD satire.

14 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I would think a kid in Cairo rocking a VPN would be on Trumps Twitter site more than here LoL. satire.

He's too busy at the DPReview forums

[hmcindie]

11 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

Even if this "video DSLR" market segment represents 3-5%; Is the Camera industry doing so well that they can ignore it ?

Yes because that 3-5% are not film makers. Most are just using the video features on auto to film something, without even wanting to shoot anything in s-log. Then the pro's shoot with something larger than a DSLR leaving a small niche of people using DSLR/Mirrorless cams for video more professionally (i.e shooting on manual and focusing by themselves). That niche is almost filled with Blackmagic cameras too. So it is already saturated.

[leeys]

15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

GOOD satire.

He's too busy at the DPReview forums

Good gods, I saw his name. Um, good luck to everyone there.

Andrew, are you actually going to contact them? I'm curious to know if their PR agencies are still as hard-headed as ever...

[ectobuilder]

And for that reason, Canon has become irrelevant to me.

I no longer hold my breadth to see what Canon might be putting out into the World.

For that I turn to the other players in the market like Sony and Panasonic.

I recently sold my cameras to pivot to the GH5, thus I've been without a camera for the last two months or so.  And to work on projects I've been renting.  A few times I rented the 1DC and my experience with that camera reminded me how outdated Canon gear rally is including their L-Series lenses for video work..

Now I'm not saying that I've shut the door on Canon, surely if they were to wake up and smell the roses and actually bring us something more in line with what Sony and Panasonic are bringing out in terms of mirrorless tech then I would take a look at Canon again.

[Andrew Reid]

You can imagine how nice a 1D C would be if Canon got off their arses.

They obviously didn't feel we were important enough a market and now their PR companies are warning them of the negative perception everyone has and they are trying to back-track by saying video improvements are top of our list, yada yada yada (while enlisting DPReview to come to their defence for money, churning out shit sponsored content video after video featuring EOS products)

Time was when Canon did the only full frame video on the market, the best low light and the most competitively priced Super 35mm 24p starting from the T2i and now they have lost their status in ALL of that, in EVERYTHING apart from autofocus (Dual Pixel AF) which the others will get soon and Sony already has (though not to same level of reliability).

For us at $3500 max, a 1D C style camera with articulated screen, the mirror and prism removed but still EF mount, the EVF from the Leica SL in its place, Dual Pixel AF, no crop in 4K mode, but the same ultra high quality stills body and functionality (minus the OVF, who needs that now you have Dual Pixel AF any way), rugged like a tank and of course full frame with beefy codec, would be magical. But that would take the world by storm and Canon don't seem to like too much excitement. Distracts from the much more important business of network cams

It also takes INNOVATION and RISK, two things that scare the accountants who effectively seem to RUN THE COMPANY.

I think they are headed for an obsolete status in the camera market long-term and they know it.

They have prepared early by heading into other areas which are now more important.

See ya darling, won't be missed.

[jcs]

Who makes a better camera at any price vs. the Canon C300 II with all these important features in one camera: Excellent color and skintones, excellent DR, excellent low light, excellent autofocus, excellent/low rolling shutter, excellent XLR audio, excellent battery life, large selection of very high quality native mount lenses?

Absolutely need 4K slomo too- add the 1DX II. Even ARRI can't compete with this combination.

Canon charges a lot for this combo- they can because there is no competition right now. Is this combo perfect- no, these are big, heavy, (relatively) expensive attention-attracting cameras.

On the lower end the closest is perhaps the Sony A7R II (we use the A7S II- AF barely useful, RS is high, skintones can look good but takes work, battery life is poor). If the A7S III has less RS, upgraded AF (better than A7R II), and better battery life, improved color science, that will be a very compelling camera. There may be politics / agreements in place between manufacturers however and that's why no single manufacturer has everything in one camera.

There are so many great cameras available the camera isn't the issue anymore for creating excellent content. While tools go hand in hand with content quality, content is king...

Instead of pushing each other to upgrade to better gear, maybe it's better if we pushed each other to create better content (with constructive criticism :)).

[Andrew Reid]

No competition to the 1D X II and C300 II?

Erm how about the Sony FS5 and FS7 II, which in the C300 II's backyard (rental) pummel it.

The Nikon D5 is the main competition to the 1D X Mark II because it's a stills camera.

For video of course the Sony A7S II and A7R II are the competition even though they are a different category of camera and much cheaper.

The only area where there is not enough competition for Canon is with Dual Pixel AF, which I'd like to see perfected by Sony and Panasonic before much longer... They could have been quicker on the uptake with that.

[jcs]

13 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

No competition to the 1D X II and C300 II?

Erm how about the Sony FS5 and FS7 II, which in the C300 II's backyard (rental) pummel it.

The Nikon D5 is the main competition to the 1D X Mark II because it's a stills camera.

For video of course the Sony A7S II and A7R II are the competition even though they are a different category of camera and much cheaper.

The only area where there is not enough competition for Canon is with Dual Pixel AF, which I'd like to see perfected by Sony and Panasonic before much longer... They could have been quicker on the uptake with that.

Again, having all those features in ONE camera (or two in this case if 4K slomo is absolutely required). Want everything in ONE camera, C700 (and of course it's very expensive).

There's good stuff coming out from Panasonic, Fuji, and Sony. They each have their own pluses and minuses.

[silvertonesx24]

On 3/17/2017 at 10:35 AM, themartist said:

I like this article. I think you certainly have enough Canon gear to have them consider your input a little more attentively, despite any constructive criticism you may have levelled against them.

 

Honest question, how do you afford to spend over $100 000 of camera gear. It's obviously a luxury not many Pro's let alone enthusiasts could afford. I'd assume either its been a profitable hobby buying and selling... or your blog has been particularly profitable. Either way, I'm jealous.

Spending $100k on anything is extremely easy when you're doing it as a business. And if you're quickly flipping the gear after a review (assuming he does) instead of holding a depreciating asset, the gross amount will really add up without costing much. 100% scalable offerings like the EOSHD guides will also net plenty to play with in terms of capital to invest.

Taking 1.7MM unique users (blog readers?) per year assuming half a point conversion (a little on the low end but pretty standard for websites) on a $20 digital guide and the only overhead being a 4% PayPal fee equals ~$163k/year.

[Tim Sewell]

Quote

Taking 1.7MM unique users (blog readers?) per year assuming half a point conversion (a little on the low end but pretty standard for websites) on a $20 digital guide and the only overhead being a 4% PayPal fee equals ~$163k/year.

I don't know what Andrew makes, but I was struck by a recent post by Noam Kroll on his site where he said that 'Thousands of you picked up my LUT packs', which were $36 each or $89 for the set. I hadn't really considered it before, but that adds up to a big old pile of wonga! Good for them, I say. If selling online intangibles that provide value to the community can provide independent or interesting voices with a living that excuses them from having to run ads, I'm all for it.

[silvertonesx24]

32 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

I don't know what Andrew makes, but I was struck by a recent post by Noam Kroll on his site where he said that 'Thousands of you picked up my LUT packs', which were $36 each or $89 for the set. I hadn't really considered it before, but that adds up to a big old pile of wonga! Good for them, I say. If selling online intangibles that provide value to the community can provide independent or interesting voices with a living that excuses them from having to run ads, I'm all for it.

It's why VC startups have gone gangbusters over the past few years. They all promise infinite scaleability through the digital ether and that makes for a very compelling investment proposition. I too prefer it to the advertising model, and it makes far more sense for the developer considering how Adblock and ad fraud wipe out tons of potential revenue for the site owner.

I've also always had the nihilistic belief that the only real money to be made in creative is in selling or telling, not doing.

[andrgl]

3 hours ago, silvertonesx24 said:

It's why VC startups have gone gangbusters over the past few years. They all promise infinite scaleability through the digital ether and that makes for a very compelling investment proposition. I too prefer it to the advertising model, and it makes far more sense for the developer considering how Adblock and ad fraud wipe out tons of potential revenue for the site owner.

I've also always had the nihilistic belief that the only real money to be made in creative is in selling or telling, not doing.

LOL kid, you're delusional. If you seriously think even 1% of 1% of his traffic converts, I suggest you try it yourself.

LETS FLATOUT IGNORE THE FACT I CAN BUY THE GUIDES, TELL PAYPAL I WANT MY MONEY BACK AND KEEP THEM. Because it's fucking PayPal and as a seller/merchant/piece of shit you have 0 recourse to being defrauded by your "customers".

I averaged not even quite 4ish% for 2016 which blew my fucking mind. (When I started I used to project monthly revenue like: oh shit! If I hit 12 percent, I can retire and hire people to do this for me!) And that's in a crazy good niche with people who WANT to buy products.

LMAO @ 100k selling PDFs. Ayyy Andrew would be churning out silos and milking that SEO if money rolling in. Itd be all cinema5d I here: we so poor plox and do this for free...... also he are some camera prices for c300 and fs7!! ;);) -plz-not-noticing-affiliate-tag

Thanks for the laugh.

PS: Half a point is for like shitty adsense CPM calcs. Just imagine how infinitesimal the number of DIY dslr shooters that are willing to spend money is.

 

 

...

I'm not shitting on your mythical world where EOSHD is making millions. It's just that this niche (video) is shit and Andrew's call to actions are poorly placed.

If he wanted to make bank he'd be writing about handguns for women and raking in like 30% commission on $1200 items.

[silvertonesx24]

12 hours ago, andrgl said:

LOL kid, you're delusional. If you seriously think even 1% of 1% of his traffic converts, I suggest you try it yourself.

LETS FLATOUT IGNORE THE FACT I CAN BUY THE GUIDES, TELL PAYPAL I WANT MY MONEY BACK AND KEEP THEM. Because it's fucking PayPal and as a seller/merchant/piece of shit you have 0 recourse to being defrauded by your "customers".

I averaged not even quite 4ish% for 2016 which blew my fucking mind. (When I started I used to project monthly revenue like: oh shit! If I hit 12 percent, I can retire and hire people to do this for me!) And that's in a crazy good niche with people who WANT to buy products.

LMAO @ 100k selling PDFs. Ayyy Andrew would be churning out silos and milking that SEO if money rolling in. Itd be all cinema5d I here: we so poor plox and do this for free...... also he are some camera prices for c300 and fs7!! ;);) -plz-not-noticing-affiliate-tag

Thanks for the laugh.

PS: Half a point is for like shitty adsense CPM calcs. Just imagine how infinitesimal the number of DIY dslr shooters that are willing to spend money is.

 

 

...

I'm not shitting on your mythical world where EOSHD is making millions. It's just that this niche (video) is shit and Andrew's call to actions are poorly placed.

If he wanted to make bank he'd be writing about handguns for women and raking in like 30% commission on $1200 items.

Hey ass hole, I'm just speculating for fun and never said millions. I have no clue how many guides/LUT packs he actually sells, just generally estimating based on my own experience. For a decently optimized website (yes, his is not), 1.0-1.5% conversion is pretty good. Frankly, I highly doubt EOSHD gets 1.7MM unique visitors per year based on organic traffic estimates, he might need start filtering out Russian analytics spammers.

If PayPal chargebacks are a significant problem for him then his content isn't good enough. Yeah it'll always be an issue to some degree but straightup piracy is a far bigger concern for something like this.

30% commission for an affiliate link, you're a funny joke. ~8-12% at best.